Happiness is a Warm Light Bulb

A recent column written by H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, highlights something I've been saying for a long time -- much of the research done by "manmade global warming" scientists is sloppy and inaccurate.

The gist of their argument, of course, is that climate-caused catastrophes will occur in the future due to mankind's activities (unless the United States pays exorbitant amounts of money to the United Nations while at the same time turning our society's calendar back 100 years.) This argument is championed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Burnett points out that forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics. Even if global warming research scientists had collected accurate data on historical temperatures (which they have not; see my discussion of the discredited "hockey stick" graph) they would still need to use sound methods to predict possible future outcomes.

From Burnett's article: "In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

"A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval."

.

Global warming alarmists want changes on a massive scale made to the US economy and society. Our politicians have taken up the argument, beginning with outlawing incandescent light bulbs. Interference in our daily lives based on a theory supported by flawed science should astound and enrage anyone with a bit of common sense. They have managed to get laws enacted based simply on fear (and a fear of bad publicity for the politicians.)

.

Our side loses if we simply sit idly by and watch it happen.